4000

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1353005352' post='1870454'] Country of origin has no contribution to the substance of an instrument. Nor does price. Substance can come at a cost, because you can have an instrument made to fulfil most things if the luthier is skilled enough, and you are honest enough in knowing and communicating what you want, the trick there is telling them what you want to achieve not telling them how to achieve it, because they know that part better than you. [/quote] If price isn't important (and it isn't really) why do you constantly stress it as a negative/positive? And though price and country of origin may not be important, country of origin does have an affect on price, and yes, you also keep referring to that. This is (once again) beginning to remind me of Syd Barrett's "Have You Got It Yet?" Highfox, our discussions often go on this way, to my eternal amusement. I think you're right, and once again we should knock it on the head....'til next time.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1352988905' post='1870200'] But if the logo makes it cost 4 to 5 times as much as an otherwise equivalent instrument, it throws the value for money right out the window. Which is the whole point of the exclusivity being easier to sell than substance, making a good instrument is quite difficult. Stuff can be inconsistent when you can buy 5, pick the best of them and bin the rest for the price of a single inconsistent instrument with an expensive logo. [/quote] I may agree if I could find an equivalent instrument. But there isn't one. Because I want the neck to be a specific way, I want it to have specific features, both functional and aesthetic, and nobody else makes that instrument. They never did, not even the copiers. Regardless, I think you're too easily dismissing the effect on pricing of country of origin. Also, it's quite possible that the best of the cheaper 5 instruments may still not satisfy you in the way that the best example of the more expensive instruments can. Or vice versa. Again, to me it's about finding the instrument that works best for you, not how much it costs. Of course most of us are constrained to some degree or other but if the instrument that suits me better costs more, so be it. Although FWIW, my main Ric cost me £490 in 1993. Not a huge sum even then. And I didn't even consider buying it until I picked it up and played it, surely the best test of all.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1352940665' post='1869732'] The point of the substance thing being that the mystique built around the brand has no substance, but serves to maintain a high price. A concious decision has been made to pursue that end. The real substance of an instrument is down to the player to a massive extent. All of the branding stuff is value to a dealer, and is essentially insubstantial, it is just theory. As in, 'in theory, a cheap Chinese bass is inferior to an expensive American one', but in practice, the cheap Chinese one is massively better, because the practice is in the playing, and I can only absolutely say that about a bass I've been playing in favour of other basses. Having a 2mm action etc is still theoretical, in itself it doesn't make the bass good because it might still be unsuited to the player, although it has a contribution to make. But a brand name contributes nothing but resale value, and resale value is only good for basses you don't want to play. [/quote] But you’re contradicting yourself by judging an instrument on brand name, pricepoint and country of origin, instead of on its own merits. Also, with regards to pricing, costs are cheaper in China and therefore you're always likely to get better value for money (if you look at many USA made guitars, they're pretty similar prices to each other, give or take). However that doesn't mean the bass you buy will be better, because it's all subjective. Even a bass that is built fantastically well at a great price point may not be a great musical instrument in your terms, may not work for you, because that is once again subjective, assuming you believe in the concept in the first place. I agree with your point about the playing being most important, but you have to want to pick the bass up in the first place and it has to satisfy whatever needs you may have (comfort, playablity, sound, aesthetic, reliability etc). The only thing that matters at the end of the day is whether the instrument, wherever it was made, however much it costs, whatever its brand (or not) works for you. That doesn't mean that someone's perfect instrument (or as near as such a thing is) couldn't possibly be a "brand" one; it doesn't mean they've simply been hoodwinked. It's still quite possible that a Rick, a Fender, a Musicman or whatever, even if it's a specific instrument that's not necessarily representative, may suit a player for far more valid reasons than what it says on the headstock. Some may even find they like an instrument in spite of their [i]negative[/i] expectations. Will an instrument be any better or worse for simply taking the logo off? No.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1352936236' post='1869691'] If you want to try it, you'd have to come round my house and do so. Brand isn't a relevant reference point because it bears no relation to the substance of a bass. I was asked to suggest a bass of substance. And since I've been playing this one for many years, and continue to do so in favour of a great many others, I can say with absolute certainty, that it is an excellent instrument. The writing on the headstock is absolutely irrelevant to that. For the name thing if I'm asked to suggest a good guitar tech, I'll point someone at a specific guy, once I've established a few specifics, as opposed to going 'just go for any guy called Jones', because not all Jones' are the same person. I like my bass because when I choose to play bass, this is the bass I like to play. This one, not any other ones that are similarly configured. See, if you'd said 'painting' instead of the first 'Picasso' it might have looked like you meant it. [/quote] Another helpful, informative post. Well done. While I'm interested in the bass you play, I'd prefer not to have to travel the length of the country to find out its got more strings than I need or that it weighs 15 lbs. A starting point would have been nice. Ah well, I tried. I think next time I'll go on a cooking forum to talk about tennis rackets. Because all hell might break loose if I mention a particular type of potato by name. FWIW, you appear to have chosen to completely miss my point about the Picasso. Oh sorry, [i]painting[/i]. Everybody move along, nothing to see here..... Oh, one other thing. You state that "not all Jones's are the same person" and "this one, not any other ones that are similarly configured". In a previous thread when I stated pretty much the same about my particular pair of Rickenbackers you used that as an excuse to bash their consistency. Ironic that, seeing as your argument is therefore rendered inconsistent.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1352902622' post='1869116'] Its a bass. Edit: Oh yeah, guess from the mention of other brands, you think the writing on the headstock imparts special properties to the function of an instrument. This one says 'Better than yours' on it, so there you go. Much cheaper and more effective to have that written on it and spend the money on stuff that actually makes for a good instrument. [/quote] Oh, that's really helpful, thanks. I [i]was[/i] actually interested. What if I'd been so impressed by how much you thought of it that I'd wanted to go and try one? You seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions about peoples motivations for buying instruments. I once bought a Westone Quantum simply because I loved it. Same for the Hohner Jack I bought which I liked better than a room full of far more expensive stuff. They could have said "Nads" on them for all I cared, or nothing at all, like the bitsa Strat I helped a friend put together. Oh, and I'm referring to them by brand to give you a reference point; it's called communication. As I've said before, it's quite possible to like something for what it actually is rather than what it says on it. If I like a Picasso, is it only because Picasso painted it? Can't I like it simply because I like it and [i]it happens to be [/i]a Picasso? Can't I like Picasso's work for any other reason than because it's got his name on it? By your reasoning it would appear not; I'd simply be blinded by that fact. Nice world view. I don't generally like Rics because they say Rickenbacker on them, I generally like them because I like the way they sound, look and feel; they simply happen to be Rics and for clarity I obviously refer to them as such. If I was talking about my mate Keith I'm going to refer to him by his name, not because it holds some sort of mystical quality but because it might help people have an idea who I'm talking about. "Oh yes, I know him" or "never heard of him". I don't think Rics are inherently better than other basses. I only think that in most instances they're better [i]for me[/i]. For someone else they could be the worst thing in the world; who am I to tell other people what's best for them? Everyone should make up their own mind about what works for them. So, your bass is a bass. What does it look like? What's the configuration? What do you like about it? Elaborate. If you're not interested in discussing basses what are you doing on a bass forum?

I've had 2 and used one for a few years in a metal band through a 2x15 cab. FWIW I competed quite happily with 2 modded 100W Marshall guitar stacks and arguably the loudest drummer I've ever played with, although I have to qualify that by saying I don't like hearing myself loudly in the onstage mix, unlike some. I never had a problem with lows, but my idea of lows probably isn't your idea of lows; on my Ashdowns I [i]cut [/i]bass, at least with the Rics. Personally I'm not that keen on loud, clean valve amps; the Superbass was my favourite valve amp that I've owned/used.

[quote name='Mr. Foxen' timestamp='1352761891' post='1867241'] My main one is pretty much as good as could possibly be for the price. [/quote] Which could also probably be said about a Sue Ryder and a Fodera. What is it, just out of interest?

[quote name='KevB' timestamp='1351517029' post='1852014'] Necks on Rics do feel slightly odd, particularly those of us that often play Fenders and the like. Ric necks don't taper toward the headstock like Fenders, parallel width all the way down. [/quote] Which is one of the things I like most about them. I never understood a neck that goes from nothing to huge, like a Jazz (one of my least favourite neck shapes ever), but then I learned to play on a Ric so I would think that. Pretty much all the basses I like have a similar width / string spacing to a Ric (Alembic spring to mind). I can certainly imagine that if you're used to playing on something like a Fender a Ric would feel very strange in all sorts of ways, but it works the other way too.

[quote name='EBS_freak' timestamp='1349910362' post='1832290'] Is this a Sei or do my eyes fail me again? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RYoU0_7thg[/media] [/quote] John Thompson with his Sei Original 6. When he used that bass with Soul 2 Soul live on Jools I thought it was the possibly the best clean bass sound I've ever heard on the telly; deep, rich and smooth.

[quote name='Musky' timestamp='1349998702' post='1833509'] Same thing that can make a '58 Les Paul worth £100,000+ - someone's prepared to pay that much. [/quote] Indeed. In real terms though, and ignoring how they sound (which is not how new Rics sound) there are features on my basses you can't get now; full width crushed pearl inlays, chequered binding, aluminium tailpiece etc. If Ric brought out an [i]exact[/i] copy of either of my basses I'd be happy to buy new.

[quote name='AttitudeCastle' timestamp='1349809158' post='1830891'] It's all in the attack, he plays quite lightly and brushes the strings rather than smacking them, [/quote] This. He said in an interview somewhere that he play a lot lighter then everyone thinks he does.

You should buy something because you like it, no other reason. FWIW I love Ric ergonomics and don't tend to get on with Fender so well. Each to their own. One thing I don't understand is that people go on about how much they cost. IME you can pick them up for a similar price to a Stingray Classic and a custom shop Fender will cost you a fair bit more. Oh, and a new one will cost a fair bit less than either of my '72s.

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1348323031' post='1812326'] SE I'm afraid! I'm just about to pack for a gig this evening in a smallish venue and will be putting the Compact in the car rather than the Midget. Sound? No, just the Midget looks too small sometimes! [/quote] Ah, a bit too far away. Never mind, thanks for the offer. I like a small cab. It makes me look like a giant! Seriously, these days the smaller the better as long as it functions. Sometimes we have to get 3 band members and a passenger into one car with our gear (current band is acoustic, except for me).

With the odd exception the only ones you'll find with chequered binding are '73 and earlier. They have done the odd one-off or limited run/edition (and of course the 4002 and LK) but generally speaking you aren't going to get anything later than '73 with chequers.

My favourite cab? My original mk1 (?) Trace 4x10; unported, painted rather than covered, with a gigantic 200watts-worth of Celestion power handling. In modern terms it was probably crap but with my Rics at least it sounded the absolute dogs. It was basically half of Mark King's / Leigh Gorman's original 8x10 Trace combo, for anyone who remembers. Used to be able to carry all 100lbs of it in one hand. Nowadays I wouldn't even be able to pick it off the floor. I used to really like the Hartke XL 10s which sound not dissimilar, and for use with my Seis I've always quite liked EBS cabs. I think for me it's about matching a particular bass to a particular amp to a particular cab; I've never found anything that works across the board. FWIW cabs I really haven't got on with are anything with Peavey Black Widows (horrible) and I really didn't like my Hartke 1x15. Not a fan of the Aguilar Gs112s I had either; they had loads of everything I didn't want and nothing of what I did.

[quote name='Pete Academy' timestamp='1346268386' post='1787316'] I wish I'd written Teen Town. [/quote] That'd be approx number 423,000,096 on the list of things I wish I'd written. To be honest I've always found it rather dull.

Very interesting Alan, but not really surprising to me. Thanks for posting.

The reissues aren't really classed as a 4001S. They are what they are; V63 reissue, 4001CS Chris Squire Signature (that's "the creamy one" in the pic), C-Series, and are referred to as such. (Probably) all 4000 single-pickup basses are unbound with dot necks. Originally they were neck-though but around '72-'73 (IIRC) became set necked, although there are possibly exceptions, as there always are with Ricks. Both the '72s are standard for the time (if there is such a thing) but their spec is slightly different. The heads are slightly different shapes and the Fireglo has the walnut headstock wings, the Azure has a skunk stripe under the paint and has a slightly smaller body. The back pickup is slightly different too, although so slightly that many wouldn't notice. As I said before, you're best going on Rick Resource for all the details because it really isn't all that simple. There are lots of variations and lots of exceptions to the rules, not just from year to year but from month to month and even from bass to bass.